±±¾©Èü³µpk10

Fingernails of agency executives across the world will be nibbled

to the quick as they await the verdict of a September meeting in McLean,

Virginia, at which Mars managers will put their global ad strategy under

the microscope.

Never before has anything so dramatic been contemplated by the

confectionery-to-catfood multinational famed for the longevity of its

agency relationships. On the outcome of the gathering may depend

hundreds of agency jobs and even the survival of at least one global

network as a separate entity.

The route taken by Procter & Gamble last year in using its might to get

the most creative and effectively implemented advertising possible -

even if it means making agencies into vulnerable takeover targets - is

one Mars seems intent on following.

’Clients are under pressure to deliver and see their agencies as soft

targets,’ the former boss of an agency with wide experience of global

advertising says. ’It’s the beginning of a growing trend.’

That trend may herald a fundamental change in agency/client

relationships as global players like Mars and P&G start questioning

whether it’s sensible or desirable for so much advertising to be

originated and implemented by a single network. Hence the likelihood of

both giants following in Unilever’s footsteps and looking beyond their

rosters to local ’challenger’ shops in a variety of key countries able

to produce advertising for the international stage.

The origin of Mars’ creative conversion goes back to the mid 90s. At

that time, its agency relationships, stretching back decades, had

stifled innovation, bred complacency and resulted in dull and formulaic

advertising.

Andrew Cracknell, who worked on Mars for Bates in the UK and the US,

says: ’Agency and client constructed a bureaucracy that made innovation

almost impossible.’

What’s more, the company was perceived as exerting a negative influence

over its agency teams.

’Mars was one of the worst pieces of business on which I ever worked,’ a

former creative director recalls. ’They were obsessed by rules and

although they claimed to be full of enthusiasm for good advertising,

they held up their hands in horror if you wanted to make the slightest

change.’

The turning point came in 1995. Forrest and John Mars, the brothers who

control the company, were enraged by the ousting of Maurice Saatchi.

Their response was to strip Saatchi & Saatchi’s Bates subsidiary of all

their business, ending a link going back more than 40 years.

The replacement of Bates by the BBDO network was the catalyst for a new

approach. Not only did the newcomer produce breakthrough advertising but

it forced Mars’ other roster shops, Grey and DMB&B, to raise their

games.

’BBDO has been allowed to do things other Mars agencies were not,’ an

industry source says.

Mars is loved and loathed by its agencies in equal measure. The company

strives perpetually to clip commission levels - and may be helped

further in this by reducing its global roster from three to two.

’They’ve never felt they had the remuneration system sorted,’ a former

senior executive at a roster agency explains.

However, such exasperating behaviour is counterbalanced by the

advantages, notably the critical mass Mars gives a network and the huge

contribution it makes to overheads.

Meanwhile, there’s the chance Mars will do something spectacular.

’They’re always dangling a carrot in front of you,’ a Mars agency

manager says.

Those familiar with the workings of the company suggest what is

happening is part of an internal cultural revolution. The result may be

to give extra rein to a more confident new tier of management, highly

paid and superbly trained, but previously constrained by an atmosphere

of attrition, frustrated by the company’s less than outstanding

performance and determined to overhaul agency arrangements.

Who will be the most likely loser in any shake-out? Grey, whose

chairman, Ed Meyer, needs no lessons from the Mars brothers in

autocracy, is hampered by a faltering share price. ’John and Forrest are

keen students of such things,’ an industry source says. But although the

loss of dollars 200 million worth of Mars business would be painful,

P&G, SmithKline Beecham and British American Tobacco more than

compensate.

BBDO’s outstanding creative reputation is complemented by high-level

connections within Mars. Its problem is its global structure, a

’federation’ system with little central control. ’That makes Mars

nervous,’ an insider remarks.

The major thing DMB&B has going for it is its length of time on the Mars

roster, which may make the breaking of the link too much for the company

to contemplate. To say - as one former DMB&B chief does - that the loss

of Mars would be ’hugely serious’ is putting it mildly.

With a few local exceptions (like Maltesers), DMB&B’s performance on

Mars which, along with P&G, is its bedrock account, has been

lacklustre.

To make matters worse, the network no longer has the strategic input of

Mars gurus like Larry Light, a man so steeped in the Mars culture that

he was said to reduce himself to tears when discussing the influence of

Milky Ways on US consumers.

Few would be prepared to bet against a Mars-approved merger between

DMB&B and Grey as a possible long-term outcome of McLean. ’There’s a

Machiavellian element within Mars,’ a source declares. ’It’s quite

prepared to exploit indecision within an agency to its advantage.’